This blog is produced by the Consortium for Project Leadership at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, for anyone interested in the practical application of leadership to project management. We aim to publish meaningful articles by various authors on a monthly basis focused on stories about lessons learned in leading and managing projects.

Friday, January 15, 2016

When we began
this blog in early 2014 we explained the name of the blog, “Living Order,” this
way:

It was the French Nobel Prize
winner Henri Bergson who a century ago proposed a concept of order that today
may help us better understand project reality. In the 1907 book Creative
Evolution, Bergson claimed that there is no such thing as disorder, but rather
two sorts of order: geometric order and living order. While in “geometric
order” Bergson was relating to the traditional concept of order, in “living
order” he referred to phenomena such as the creativity of an individual, a work
of art, or the mess in our offices.
All projects aim to reach a perfectly functioning product with geometric
order. At the start, they may face great uncertainty—living order—that does not
completely disappear over the entire course of the project.

Gradually, some
parts of the project approach geometric order, though in an era of “permanent
white water,” the project as a whole does not assume geometric order until
very late in its life.

In working with NASA 15 years ago, Alex found that these two
types of order were helpful in developing project management knowledge. He used
a story as the basis of his first article as editor-in-chief of NASA’s Ask Magazine.* To summarize that story:

Alex was presented with nine
elements of project success by Jim Carroll, a respected and highly regarded
person in the construction industry. At the time, Jim was leading a
Construction Industry Institute task force in creating a handbook for
practitioners that explained each of the nine elements. Jim steadfastly stood
by these nine elements, and asked Alex to write a handbook chapter on project
strategy.

Alex just could not do it. He could
not accept the nine elements for project success for two reasons: 1) they were
too limiting, and 2) they were stated as the “one best way” to proceed which
ignored the rich context in which projects and people interact.

After several hours of heated
debate and discussion between Alex and Jim, Alex realized he would not be able
to convince Jim of the weakness of the nine elements and was about ready to
give up. Lastly, Alex asked Jim to consider whether applying the nine elements
could explain the success or failure of seven projects with which Jim was
involved during his career. Jim agreed to put the elements to the test.

As it turned out, there was little
correlation between project success and the nine elements. This proved a
revelation for Jim, and he was willing to reflect on the experience and to
learn from it. And, more accurately in our case, he was willing to unlearn from
it and admit that the nine elements could not provide the complete answer.

Feeling Comfortable Only in a World of Certainty

There were other problems with the task force. A year later,
Alex submitted the research report to the task force: the results, based on an
elaborate study in 11 highly successful companies, were quite shocking to task
force members. The findings showed that in most capital projects, uncertainty
is not resolved early in the life of the project; for example, by the end of the
design phase. Even more troubling was the finding that in most capital
projects, not only are the “means uncertainty” (how to do it) resolved late in
the project life, but so are the “end uncertainty” (what to do).

Most task force members could not accept that capital projects
suffer from uncertainty, and definitely not from “end uncertainty,” so they
adjusted the presentation of Alex’s findings. Instead of portraying project
planning as a gradual process of lessening uncertainty, they portrayed it as a
gradual process of increasing certainty.

Task force members felt comfortable in only a certain world of
geometric order, and so they denied uncertainty, even in the face of empirical
data from within their own organizations. Most members were not interested in
learning, even when leading a research activity. They did not formulate
research questions, only research answers. It could be that the mix of
contractors and clients put everyone into marketing mode. Marketing starts with
an answer; research with a question. They hired “researchers” not to find out
or understand reality, but to confirm their own beliefs.

Alex’s story demonstrates our ability to learn by reflecting
on our own experiences, and our inability to learn by favoring “answering” over
“questioning”. Learning
starts with a question, a problem to be solved, a dilemma to be resolved and a
challenge to be met. Managers who treat questions as annoyances and
regard them as signs of ignorance are not learning. Questions force deep
thinking and reflection; they are an invitation to open a conversation whereas
ready answers are a prelude to shutting it down. Breakthroughs come from fresh questions, not ready
answers.

Providing a ready answer ignores the power and potential of
“living order.” As we have tried to
demonstrate in our monthly blogs during the last two years, ignoring the
central role of “living order” can be damaging for today’s fast-paced,
interconnected projects. During the last two years we have attempted to
demonstrate that leadership is key for project success. Today, we highlighted
that leadership is also the key for project learning and unlearning.

The study that Alex conducted, and especially the way the
task force accepted it, demonstrated that many professionals still embrace only
the geometric order. After two years of publishing monthly stories we — Jeff
and Alex — still have a long way to go with the monthly Living Order blogs.

Co-Authors

Follow by Email

Translate

What is "Living Order"?

Embracing the "living order" concept is the first practice of project leadership. Leaders must be comfortable leading in today's environment of constant change. Bergson (1907) identified two types of order: the traditional concept of perfect geometric order, and living order -- which can be messy, even chaotic, with project problems and surprises in an evolving organization.